In the past week, it has been interesting to try to understand why the press and broadcast media have assumed that the British public would in any way be surprised by the avarice behind the arrogant and ill-mannered comments of minor royalty. Greed is not a characteristic unknown in the British royal family. The well-documented tantrums, the gaffes and the sheer crass stupidity of the Windsors have in recent years contributed to the erosion of the ongoing pretence that this historically disreputable family is in some indefinable, God-given way different from, if not better than, the rest of us. The maintenance of a kingdom and our role as subjects rather than citizens has depended to a very large extent on the royal family being able to keep its opinions on politics and elected politicians to itself. Essentially, family members' places on the civil list are guaranteed by their ability and/or willingness to keep their mouths shut. So is the retention of the monarch as head of state. However, while I am clearly a member of the Roundhead tendency, I also believe the British press, particularly the News of the World, have sunk to an all-time low by using such illegitimate methods to obtain Sophie Wessex's comments. Undercover reporting to expose serious political and criminal scandal ( the Watergate cover-up, say) demonstrates journalistic courage and integrity; entrapment is an ugly scenario. And setting up this silly young woman shows no more than craven opportunism.

---

On the plus side, the Sophie episode presents the excuse - if any excuse were needed - to consider the future of the monarchy. At the beginning of this parliament, a great opportunity was lost to reform the House of Lords by turning it into a fully elected second chamber. In my opinion, there is no place in a mature democracy for the hereditary principle. But what is needed is a sensible and informed debate, not one generated by the venal hounds of Murdoch.

---

Talking of the hereditary principle, the Windsors are not the only family to have inbuilt expectations about the future roles of their children. In my family, the eldest grandson was usually expected to enter the priesthood. As the second grandson, I might reasonably have expected to escape that fate, but unfortunately my cousin died in infancy, leaving the full weight of family expectation on my puny shoulders. As an enthusiastic altar boy, I enjoyed the dressing up and the drama of the Catholic ritual, but my piety and commitment to the Church were severely tested by an incident in 1945, just after the Allied victory in Europe. At a thanks- giving service, our parish priest used his sermon to launch an attack on the Labour Party and the dire consequences that would follow from its victory in the general election. The church was reduced to uproar as my grandfather, pressured into attending the service, rose to his feet and began to harangue the priest for broadcasting Tory propaganda. The Catholic preference for Conservative politics, and the demands of celibacy, were the main factors in my decision to reject the priesthood as a career.

---

Over the years, family expectations have changed - which must come as a relief to my eldest grandson, Euan. In the past six weeks, I have been in London working on the Channel 5 soap opera Family Affairs. This meant I was able to take the opportunity last week to see Euan perform in a school production of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. As a schoolgirl, Cherie played the role of Thomas a Becket in a school production of Murder in the Cathedral, with considerable success. Her grandmother expressed the anxiety she would follow "that damn fool" (me) into acting.

As Cherie and I sat together, proudly watching my beautiful and talented grandson, history repeated itself as my daughter voiced her grandmother's worries. Wonderful as it would be for me to see another generation of actors in our family, I would be fearful. For all those moments of sheer joy that acting can bring, there is also a vast amount of pain.

---

Travelling on the train between Manchester and London these past few weeks, I have become intimately reacquainted with the horrors of Virgin West Coast. The resignation of the traumatised manifests itself as weary passengers shrug their shoulders over the squalid conditions, late arrivals - even non-arrivals - grateful just to arrive at their destination at some point on the same day. In my daydreams, John Prescott and Richard Branson are forced to travel standard class for a week between Manchester and London, experiencing the delays and frustration commonplace to the hoi polloi.

It was announced that Virgin intends to increase its prices by almost 10 per cent, a rise that, given the conditions the company imposes on its long-suffering passengers, is impossible to justify. Not only is the experience unpleasant, but the flagrant incompetence of Railtrack can make rail travel a dangerous if not fatal experience. The case for renationalising the railways is now unassailable. I am sure someone would be able to explain to me why, if Railtrack is now a private business, the government is required to subsidise it out of public money, even subbing the firm when its financial situation gets a bit tight - but I fail completely to understand the economic logic. Only with government control and accountability can faith in the rail system now be restored.

The film director Alex Cox recently wrote to me with details of an online referendum on Britain's trains. If you want to take part and make your voice heard, the website address is: www.renationalise.com

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website